Call of Duty: Black Ops: dedicated servers, dev console, mods

Remember when dedicated servers, dev consoles, and mods were all a given? …

Modern Warfare 2was not especially loved in PC gaming circles because of the lack of dedicated servers, the inability to tweak the game's settings, and the absence of support for user-created content. It looks like Treyarch is swinging for the fences with the latest entry in the series, which will include all three, although not at launch.

"We plan to open the game up for modding sometime post-launch. We do not know yet to what extent you will be able to mod the game. There are some purely technical issues related to engine and internal tool enhancements that do not easily fit the modtools paradigm," a developer said on the game's official forum.

Studio head Mark Lamia talked up dedicated servers earlier in the year. "We do work very hard to reconcile the desire to manipulate and modify those dedicated servers with offering them the persistent experience and benefits that the console system provides," he told CVG. "We're working very hard to marry those two things, so people can run dedicated servers and also participate in the communal experience the console players get to have, given they're all on first-party servers."

This sounds good. Except that it's made by Treyarch. Let's see, the Call of Duty games which featured the best experiences were....

Call of DutyCall of Duty 2Call of Duty: Modern WarfareModern Warfare 2

Treyarch made none of these. Instead, they made Call of Duty 3, which almost put me off Call of Duty games altogether, and World at War, which I stopped playing after the 4th time I had to restart my game because it kept crashing. I think I'll hold off on this one, regardless of how PC-friendly it might be.

This sounds good. Except that it's made by Treyarch. Let's see, the Call of Duty games which featured the best experiences were....

Call of DutyCall of Duty 2Call of Duty: Modern WarfareModern Warfare 2

Treyarch made none of these. Instead, they made Call of Duty 3, which almost put me off Call of Duty games altogether, and World at War, which I stopped playing after the 4th time I had to restart my game because it kept crashing. I think I'll hold off on this one, regardless of how PC-friendly it might be.

say what? the MW (especially 2) were the best in the COD series. ive been a fan from way back and i think it's easily the most fun. World at War, not so much. im switching to BF series after im done w/ the online of MW2. as much as it hurts me to go back to EA(havent played anything by them since BF2 on the PC), the new BF's look great.

...Treyarch made none of these. Instead, they made Call of Duty 3, which almost put me off Call of Duty games altogether, and World at War, which I stopped playing after the 4th time I had to restart my game because it kept crashing. I think I'll hold off on this one, regardless of how PC-friendly it might be.

As far as crashing World at War i never had that problem. I will agree to 3 being a terrible game however. When I bought 3 i didnt know that it was a different studio that made it compared to CoD2. A few days of CoD3 and me and my friends went back to number 2. Bad maps, bad vehicles, bad snipers, bad everything for 3. I tend to stay away from Treyarch now just from that one bad experience.

I guess Activision's PC customer satisfaction strategy must be "First the stick, then the carrot." It's also known as a common interrogation/torture tactic.Except in this case, it was already our carrot (servers). They took it away and now they're giving it back as if it's a big special gift... like we should all be so thankful and grateful of their generosity.

Imagine we are five years old. I steal your bike, and I do it right in front of you so you see that I am. Then, 3 months later, it's your birthday party and I give it back to you with a big shiny bow on it. That is what Activision is doing.

Imagine we are five years old. I steal your bike, and I do it right in front of you so you see that I am. Then, 3 months later, it's your birthday party and I give it back to you with a big shiny bow on it. That is what Activision is doing.

I pre-ordered BC2 after the MW2 P2P BS but then promptly canceled that pre-order after realizing EA was giving a half truth about detected servers.

I have the same question as well. The part of the last paragraph that reads "they're all on first-party servers" sounds like they're going with the EA/BC2 style tightly controlled "dedicated servers". I'll pass, thanks.

I pre-ordered BC2 after the MW2 P2P BS but then promptly canceled that pre-order after realizing EA was giving a half truth about detected servers.

I have the same question as well. The part of the last paragraph that reads "they're all on first-party servers" sounds like they're going with the EA/BC2 style tightly controlled "dedicated servers". I'll pass, thanks.

I used to maintain 3 of my own gaming machines back when each new game had a dedicated server. Built up a community at my own cost for the server hardware and the time I invested in keeping it going.

Well, now that all that has been monetized, I no longer spend $$ keeping 3 gaming PCs up to date. I also no longer consider myself a PC gamer and spend little keeping up with the latest mobos and video cards.

I console game occasionally and have learned to wait for games to hit the 19.99 price point.

The game companies have changed the dynamics of things and I am definitely one of the casualties. As much fun as I had doing all this back in the day, I am grateful that they ruined it for me as it is saving me a lot of time and money. Bravo!

The fact that they ever allowed a company to make "knock off" Call of Duty's never sat quite right with me. I'm sure as hell not going to support this company solely on the fact that they are adding features that are essentially a given with any remotely competitive FPS. I'm certainly not going to support a company that is under the evil sway of Activision, dedicated servers or not.

Having played competitive Call of Duty 1 and 2 it's sad to realize that I'll probably never support the franchise again on principle, not to mention the original devs have lost the rights to the CoD franchise (but not MW?).

Call of DutyCall of Duty 2Call of Duty: Modern WarfareModern Warfare 2

I honestly disliked CoD2 but I loved CoD3. While I haven't played WaW, I feet that Treyarch get a lot of undeserved flak. It's always struck me like Infinity Ward were the golden boys with the unlimited budget while Treyarch were the bastards with little creative freedom.

I, at least, am quite optimistic about Black Ops. Treyarch are by no means a bad developer as much as living in IW's shadow. I recently saw a short multiplayer trailer for Black Ops and I thought it looked quite promising.

The issue here is this...to save money Activision is gonna probably reuse most of the same base code from warfare2 and simply update some physics, add some guns, up the graphics a bit and call it good. The problem with this is that the engine used to make warfare2 is sooo easy to hack, multiplayer on PC is almost worthless with how many people wall hack, use aimbots, etc...and if they reuse the code, then those hacks will need minimal updates to their code and here we go again...dedicated servers or not.

A dedictaed server does nothing more then allow the Host to boot..but if hacking is easy, then there comes issues of booting people that are are actually good cause the host thinks they hack. How about making the engine from the ground up and do it right vice recycling as much as you can so you can get another game out each year to help the bottom line....eh Activision?

"We do work very hard to reconcile the desire to manipulate and modify those dedicated servers with offering them the persistent experience and benefits that the console system provides.... We're working very hard to marry those two things, so people can run dedicated servers and also participate in the communal experience the console players get to have...."

We don't want the pseudo-persistent experience and non-benefits that the console system provides! WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT TREYARCH?! And there is NO COMMUNAL EXPERIENCE on console multiplayer games!!! ARGH!!!!!!!!

Yeah, what IS this "communal" experience? Playing on Xbox live is akin to hitting your genitals with a hammer. For the short time I played Halo 3 online each lobby we joined we had to quickly rush and mute everyone before they started screaming as loud as they could.

This is strangely similar to the disgusting flaws in MW2, like how people can wait until the teams are picked and the game starts loading to destroy your ears with their latest trash talk they learned.

Imagine we are five years old. I steal your bike, and I do it right in front of you so you see that I am. Then, 3 months later, it's your birthday party and I give it back to you with a big shiny bow on it. That is what Activision is doing.

This.

Plus,

Straight-line wrote:

"We don't want the pseudo-persistent experience and non-benefits that the console system provides! WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT TREYARCH?! And there is NO COMMUNAL EXPERIENCE on console multiplayer games!!! ARGH!!!!!!!!

I feel the nostalgia, but I'd have to argue that it depends on the console game. I started playing BC2 after trying and sincerely disliking MW2's multiplayer (I loved 2 and 4), and that game does promote a communal experience on the console under the right circumstances. The right circumstances being squadmates who are talk on mic and not idiots (and yes those are pretty rare circumstances with random play). The game encourages you to cooperate with your team/squad and definitely rewards playing cooperatively/complementarily. I've actually made a couple new friends off of that.

I just got back from a seven month deployment, and honestly, there were more Marines playing MW2 in their downtime than I could count. The story itself was...well, it was, but multiplayer worked like a charm. The balance was there, and they even threw in some decent co-op stuff with the challenges. It wasn't as good as the original as far as a single-player game, but it held up pretty well when playing with friends.

This sounds good. Except that it's made by Treyarch. Let's see, the Call of Duty games which featured the best experiences were....

Call of DutyCall of Duty 2Call of Duty: Modern WarfareModern Warfare 2

Treyarch made none of these. Instead, they made Call of Duty 3, which almost put me off Call of Duty games altogether, and World at War, which I stopped playing after the 4th time I had to restart my game because it kept crashing. I think I'll hold off on this one, regardless of how PC-friendly it might be.

I just got back from a seven month deployment, and honestly, there were more Marines playing MW2 in their downtime than I could count. The story itself was...well, it was, but multiplayer worked like a charm. The balance was there, and they even threw in some decent co-op stuff with the challenges. It wasn't as good as the original as far as a single-player game, but it held up pretty well when playing with friends.

maybe its just me then, but i absolutely hate all the air support in MW2

Has anyone played a preview or a beta of this game? One of the biggest turn offs for me in MW2 were the gun animations which were very plastic-y. I mean it's a game that revolves around gunplay, why not make the gun models accurate? The same goes for the sound effects too. Very fake sounding. Has that improved?

People say Treyarch sucks...and yet they keep bringing them back to develop sequels. They must be doing something right.

*shrug*

I was never really into the CoD series. The first one was cool for its time (better than Medal of Honor imo). But I was always more into battlefield with the large scale warfare and vehicles. Sadly, as cool as BFBC2 is, its not nearly as fun as '42/Vietnam and the associated expansion packs. Call me when they bring back airplanes, aircraft carriers, the ability to prone.

I guess Activision's PC customer satisfaction strategy must be "First the stick, then the carrot." It's also known as a common interrogation/torture tactic.Except in this case, it was already our carrot (servers). They took it away and now they're giving it back as if it's a big special gift... like we should all be so thankful and grateful of their generosity.

Imagine we are five years old. I steal your bike, and I do it right in front of you so you see that I am. Then, 3 months later, it's your birthday party and I give it back to you with a big shiny bow on it. That is what Activision is doing.

You may want to look up Hanlon's Razor. I believe it is applicable here.

People say Treyarch sucks...and yet they keep bringing them back to develop sequels. They must be doing something right.

*shrug*

I was never really into the CoD series. The first one was cool for its time (better than Medal of Honor imo). But I was always more into battlefield with the large scale warfare and vehicles. Sadly, as cool as BFBC2 is, its not nearly as fun as '42/Vietnam and the associated expansion packs. Call me when they bring back airplanes, aircraft carriers, the ability to prone.

The reason they bring in Treyarch could also be cost. Truth be told, I wouldn't be surprised if 90% of the people that played CoD games had no idea that both IW and Treyarch made the games. Generally, it seems that IW was there to create the engines and the gameplay innovations that were popular, and Treyarch basically was there to add a different environment.

The engine from CoD 2 was rehashed for CoD 3. The MW gameplay was ganked for WaW. It seems, to me, that Treyarch is there to put out a game between Infinity Ward work, which takes about 2 years. It's probably not fair to the guys/gals who work there, but I blame Treyarch for the Madden-ification of CoD. The new game looks different...but the multiplayer reminded me a bit of Borderlands, and not in a good way.

This sounds good. Except that it's made by Treyarch. Let's see, the Call of Duty games which featured the best experiences were....

Call of DutyCall of Duty 2Call of Duty: Modern WarfareModern Warfare 2

Treyarch made none of these. Instead, they made Call of Duty 3, which almost put me off Call of Duty games altogether, and World at War, which I stopped playing after the 4th time I had to restart my game because it kept crashing. I think I'll hold off on this one, regardless of how PC-friendly it might be.

Leave out MW2 and we have a deal

MW2 was ok. Solid. Needed more customizable system settings/preferences, and unlocks should have taken less time/kills/destructions/etc., but other than those two things and a couple of other easily fixed issues, it was solid.

Gamers will never know the hell that is working on an established IP. You're only allowed to do 'x', and you can't make significant changes.

Consider they made the Call of Duty games they did with half the staff, probably 3/4's the time, and 1/10th (or less) of the budget that Infinity Ward had. And they could supersede anything you wanted to add.

Gamers will never know the hell that is working on an established IP. You're only allowed to do 'x', and you can't make significant changes.

Consider they made the Call of Duty games they did with half the staff, probably 3/4's the time, and 1/10th (or less) of the budget that Infinity Ward had. And they could supersede anything you wanted to add.

Yeah, I don't doubt that the guys who work at Treyarch are hard working, honest guys just trying to make the best game they can. It's not the people actually behind the game that are the problem, to be sure. That doesn't mean, however, that I should feel responsible for buying their games. They do have less staff, less money and less control than Infinity Ward...but they also signed a contract stating that they would make these games, and continue to work there.

Considering they have much less to work with, yes, they manage to do an okay job. But their games aren't, in my opinion, as good as the ones that IW has made. Especially with the vast majority of the IW staff gone to Respawn, I'm not sure I'll be buying another CoD game. Activision wants to pump out another game of the same name every year to make a few bucks? Fine. Just don't expect me to bite every time I see CoD. Especially if I know that Treyarch is making it. Sure, they might be guys trying to do the best they can with crap budget and minimal staff...but I don't buy games to help some guys I've never met, I buy games to enjoy them. Typically, I don't enjoy Treyarch games as much. That's all there is to it.

Eh, I'll be honest, I never got into any CoD until my friend told me there was a Nazi zombie map on WaW. We played the hell out of that game, then we bought MW2, played it a bit, but were overly disappointed. I played through the whole single player, and just felt like everytime they killed my character, whyTF am I playing a game that builds me up to crush me?

I'll buy Black Ops because of the rumor of another Zombie bit. I'll probably play the single player and multiplayer, but we'll see how that goes.

treyarch should just stick to mods and zombi shooters, if that was the best they could manage to do for cod. they go to the press as if they're speaking to children, and if that's how you act then that's what they will keep doing.

"If you buy our game at launch, like good little boys and girls, we'll think about mod support."

"You should buy the console version, to make it easier for us to control your gaming experience, and your wallets. Or you could get it on pc, but that's the poopy version, they're poopy heads who make us do stuff."

the pc version doesn't NEED a walled community like console gamers do, because we have the whole internets, and valve, who manages to do this without being asinine about it. pc gamers who bitch and moan about what they don't get with their game, and buy it anyway, will just perpetuate the kind of arrogance we see here. dangling carrots in our faces with zero guarantee, while promoting token features is an insult to our intelligence, just take their word for what it's worth.